Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

The aim of this essay is to discuss the development of human rights legislation and whether the Human Rights Act has helped to protect the rights of British citizens.
The general aim of this essay is to;
1) To follow the development of human rights legislation, from the end of World War 2, to the present day.
2) And how the Human Rights Act 1998, has affected the lives of British Citizens, for example recently a law allowing terror suspects to be detained for up to 90 days without charge, but this was dropped as it was deemed to breach the rights of those being detained for such a long period of time.

After World War 2, appalled by the atrocities committed during the war, The United Nations adopted the universal Declaration of Rights
in 1948. Although not legally binding, it urged member countries to promote certain rights contained within the declaration. The Universal Declaration was the first ever international, legal attempt to limit the behaviour of countries.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains 30 articles. But the most important of these are articles are considered to be the following;

o The right to life, liberty, property and security of person. o The right to an education o The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment and social security. o The right to participate fully in cultural life. o Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment o Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
o Freedom of expression and opinion.

In 1998 The Human rights act was given royal assent. The act made the rights contained within the Universal declaration of human rights, more effective within the UK. It did this by making it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which conflicted with the declaration. As well as this it also enabled UK to have breaches of their human rights rectified within UK courts, rather then having to travel to Strasbourg, which could cost thousands of pounds.

Since the act was given royal assent, in 1998, there have been a number of cases brought to the courts where a previous court decision has come into question, as to whether it breaches the individuals Human Rights, in accordance with the 1998 Human rights
act.

One such case was Anne Marie Rogers' legal fight to be given herceptin. Herceptin is a new drug, which has been developed to treat HER-2 strain breast cancer; due to the large cost of herceptin, £4000 for a year's treatment, it has only been licensed to treat the advanced stages of HER-2 breast cancer. After a judge sided with the decision of Swindon Primary Care Trust, not to fund her herceptin treatment, as she had early stage HER-2 breast cancer, rather than the advanced stage for which they usually fund it, she then appealed against the Judge's ruling. In her appeal she stated that the Trusts refusal to give her herceptin had been like a death sentence. This would go against article 3, her right to life, liberty and security of person. In her appeal the presiding judge stated that the decision of Swindon Primary Care Trust had been unlawful, as it was unfair to give the drug only to some of those whom it would help, rather than all of them.

Another way in which the 1998 human rights act has affected UK citizens is the 28 day terror limit. Following the large scale terror attacks, such as September 11th attacks, and the July 7th bombings, many British police officials pressed for the ability to hold terror suspects up to 90 days with out charging them. Originally the police could not hold terror suspects any longer than other criminal suspects, but when the 90 day terror limit was suggestion it was rejected and a compromise of 28 days was agreed to. The reason that the 90 day terror limit was rejected is because, not only does it violate article 11 of the universal declaration of human rights, no-one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest detention or exile, but it is also unfair. As many terrorists, are of Asian origin, or descent, then most terror suspects will therefore be Asian. This means that many innocent Asian people could be held for up to 90 days, under suspicion of terrorism, this goes against article 7 of the universal declaration of human rights; all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
In conclusion it can be said, that the 1998 human rights act has generally aided in protecting the rights of British citizens.
IN the case of Anne Marie Rogers' battle to be given herceptin, without the HRA she would have had to go Strasbourg in Germany, in order to fight her case, which she could not afford, as she could not afford to fund her own herceptin treatment, she could not afford to spent as much as £30,000 on legal fees and on travel costs in order to fight her case. In the case of the 28 day terror without the HRA to enforce the articles of the Universal declaration of rights, a 90 day terror limit may have been accepted, which would violate the rights of many innocent people who were unfairly detained under suspicion of terrorism. Even though the HRA has helped people it could still be improved. For example, even though it enforces the Universal declaration of human rights, in the case that an act of parliament is not compatible with the HRA then the act can be declared incompatible with the HRA, this does not make the act invalid, although it does recognize its incompatibility with the HRA, it is still a legal parliamentary
act.

sourses from : www.bbc.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998